Reply
Mon 22 Mar, 2004 05:33 pm
Surely the biggest worry Christians should have is not whether God exists (otherwise they aren't being very faithful by their own perspective!) but whether the Devil is subverting them to do his work in the belief they are furthering God's will.
A Devil that says
"I'll take away your <pocket money> if you do nice things" is far less effectual than a Devil that makes you consider
"God would like you to take away <pocket money> from bad people who don't do God's Will and spend it on people who do do God's will - you can recognise who is deserving and who isn't."
The second tactic is far more dividing and dangerous, yet is the very tactic I see (ed)
some"Christians" deploy in matters like:
1) The War against Terror
2) The debate in the USA for Constitutional Equality of rights for Gay Marriages
And this concern goes all the way back to the crusades and earlier.
Whether you believe in God / Devil or not, the faithful using belief in God's existence to promote their own Earthly understanding of his objective in any means that favours the faithful and oppresses others who don't hold these views seems very dangerous grounds to me.
What are your thoughts?
PS
<pocket money> = anything that is or should be of value to you!
truth
From my perspective, and that of the majority of participants here, the Christian's greatest fear should be that if he is wrong he has sacrificed a life of FREE THINKING, of intellectual autonomy and personal exploration.
heh first well look at what you said about how you see christians doing the 'war on terror' etc.. ya see the term 'christian' needs to be redefined and people like g. bush need to be taken out... either that or christian will become an insult (it already has in some sense)
just the fact that there are 'christians for stronger nuclear armament' and for 'just war' is insanity..
I feel if a christian fears that he or she is wrong then he or she should look at what causes the fears and that introspective process should bring him or her to realizing what they doubt.
I have subsided my own fears by staying objective however realizing that no human can define what God's TRUE intentions are and instead of worrying and instead of fearing.. I'll just be a good logic abiding person. i care very little about man made anything including the 'curch' and laws... but i still consider myself a God-Loving (cant stand the term God-Fearing) christian.
G-Day;
You could be on to something...You have made me Stop and Think of my past. I have just about been in every country of the world sometime or other.
In war time when I was young ,I broke all the Commandments more than once. Now that I am old and my desires have long since faded away into memories, I like you wonder if I wasnt doing what the devil wanted me to do, but making it look like I was doing the right thing , for after all in war time you live from day to day.
The same situation can be said for today...The Government trys to make the war look right,people are dying,trust between nations has vanished.It is the trust between nation that keeps the peace once that trust is broken, there can not be peace.
Righteousness must first be found in Iraqi before peace can be come an answer to a prayer.
Joe Harris
Joe Harris
To me, a Christians greatest fear should be anyone who wants to mix politics/government and religion. The two should never under any circumstances be intertwined.
Religion to me is believing in a God/higher power of your choice. Religion is a personal thing, something that cannot and should not be endorsed or dictated by the government.
It's dangerous when leaders of nations believe that their God is right and on their side. That's how wars are started.
Surely being a dedicated follower of any religion should be a source of comfort, rather than fear, if you live by your beliefs? I really don't understand why you need to ask this question.
I think this is a very interesting question. My whole family believes everything that GWB says, simply because he follows a similar religion. I wonder if they have ever thought about what would happen if they were right about god, but wrong about the people supposedly doing god's will? I'll have to ask them about that. Thanks for the post.
G'day, there is a disconnect in what you wrote which leaves me hesitant to respond:
G'day wrote:The second tactic is far more dividing and dangerous, yet is the very tactic I see "Christians" deploy in matters like:
1) The War against Terror
2) The debate in the USA for Constitutional Equality of rights for Gay Marriages
Precisely how is it, as you contend, that christians take away that which people value (their "pocket money") in their support of the Shrub's alleged war on terror, or in the matter of gay marriage? You'll have to explain to me how you contend it is that christians make, or attempt to make, those with whom they disagree, pay for that disagreement--otherwise i can't really take this question seriously.
For perspective, i am what foolish people refer to as an atheist, and a long and careful reading of history has lead me to consider the rise of christianity as one of the greatest disasters in the history of the West. Nevertheless, i hesitate to condemn anyone until i'm certain of the charges against them, and the evidence thereof.
paulaj wrote:A christian's biggest fear should be........
not being one :-}
Paula, you're statement doesn't make sense to me.
If a person is a Christian how can their biggest fear be......not being one.
Could you please explain your comment to me.
Sentanta - I should say some very vocal Christians - % unknown
Lets examine those two points you wished a connection drawn on.
Point 1. Gay marriage
What are Christian advocacy groups trying to do to overturn the High Court ruling or Bush trying to change the constitution to give unequal rights to gays:
I have run into some very interesting Christian folk up in arms about Gay marriage debate, e.g.
http://arc.aquamark3.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=1056
Condensing 20 pages!!! of debate to my key POV on page 18 of that thread
Quote:I see the debate is still going strong, and the central theme is still:
"We believe in our God so we get more rights than you do".
Its hidden by saying well marriage is a scared thing by God - which it isn't - it predates Christian theologies by millennia, and there are over 5,000 religous faith systems with a diety different from your own.
Its hidden by saying their (gays) unnatural - ignoring about 11% of the world and all animal kingdoms populations studied appear to be gay.
Its hidden by the constitution is morale and morality come from God so the constutition should retract freedom if it conflicts with the suspected individual morality of the forefathers signing the constitution - very hyprocritical.
Its hidden by saying gays seem aggressive and pushy today - probably the way Indians seemed pushy to the first white settlers.
Existence, God, creation and intelligent life can be argued equally strongly saying it was either all Gods will (faith) or it was simply random chance (quantum physics and evolution). Both parts get you exactly here today given sufficient time.
God allows free will - you don't, God says don't judge - as does your constitution say all men are equal - you want that retracted or amended, the High Court upholds what is fair for all - you call them radicals and want them quashed.
Is it the Christian society that is upset here or is it the descendents of the same white settlers that wiped out 99% of the native indians looking for new targets of opportunity?
Didn't Jesus actually command "love thine enemy"?
The Christian POV by the thread starter is
Quote:God-ordained institution of marriage is under attack in courts across the nation, and your help is needed. Go to:
www.nogaymarriage.com for more information and to take action.
Point 2. The War on terror
Again my views from page 11 of that thread
Perhaps this may be out of context to link to a Christian vs American issue, but in this thread I was arguing with Christians and the topic of Saddamand Bin Laden are the devil came up. I merely wanted to balance the scales reminding the thread starter that America's Christian Government often backed these Dictators into power - for over 80 years!
Quote:Yes America has improved but as little as 14 years ago the CIA was still strongly backing dictators into power all over the world, financing, trading with, giving military intelligence and support to nice folk like Phol Pott, the Ayatollahs in Tehran, Sadam and Osama, Gamal Nasser of Egypt, Qaddafi of Libya, Chilean General Augusto Pinochet, the King of Jordan, his Hashemite cousin on the Iraqi throne, Argentina General Videla, Ferdinand Marcos in the Philippines, General Suharto, Papa and Baby Doc Duvalier, Mobutu in Zairie, the Baath Party, Manuel Noriega, the Shah of Iran, the Taliban in Afghanistan, even some Lebanese Hizbollah leaders and let's not forget Nicaragua's notorious Anastazio Somoza. And they weren't one offs - your elected officials had been doing that for over 80 years! e.g.
http://www.jang.com.pk/thenews/nov2...003/oped/o1.htm or
http://www.zum.de/whkmla/period/lat...r/uslatam2.html or
http://www.notinourname.net/war/911-context-white-2ct03.htm (sorry 28 oct in link gets thought of as a smilie by this server)
Then the US ignore UN security council mandates and invade a sovereign country under a mantra of we are liberating its people as its got a bad dictator (who we supported for years when it was convienent) and he's go WMD - which is shown to be total lies. And further the US military tramples over the Hague conventions as an occupying arm it that it is selling to foreign investors outright control of over 200 major companies, banks, manufacturing concerns etc - something it is expressly illegal to do. Then it has the bareface hide to say there will be fair, democratic elections (sure of US supported local candidates whose first act must be to ratify all the USA illegal activities or else face another round of hostilities with Big Brother). With that sort of baggage to carry diplomatically how can you be democratic?
Amercia fought an illegal and immorale war and now wants to steal wealth from invaded foreign soil to cover its expenses - breaking further international laws and conventions. Were is this progress you are talking about?
These terrorists states have been largely funded and trained by the USA for 80 years and now have started to bite the hand that fed them. That is in the public domain from the 50 year rule. America had a very interventist foreign policy to project its power and influence onto foreign soil. Not very democratic if you ask me. Perhaps America should sort outs internal needs before playing so violentially on the world stage. America seems more about power then fairness to me. How a guy that dodged the war, deserted the National Guard, wasted $2 million training, went AWOL for 2 years, had a major drug problem and a cocaine conviction manages to become your president concerns me! With that for a leader the world is a more uncertain place.
No offense intended, G'day, but posting your point of view is not evidence that christians ". . . take away pocket money from bad people who don't do God's Will and spend it on people who do do God's will . . . "
I would suggest to you that you need to refine your accusation against christians. I don't hate christians, but do consider the putative origins of the belief system to be suspect. I consider that it is in the nature of religious demagoguery for the priesthood to attempt to manipulate the faithful for their (the priests) own ends. I consider that "rogue" priests consistently warp doctrine to attain control (for its own sake, as well as the material benefits which may likely accrue therefrom). None of which would lead me to assert that christians are trying to pick my pocket because i do not do what they perceive to be god's will.
Sentata
No offense taken! I concur with most of your thinking.
Some thoughts on my logic
1) I say some - not all Christians
2) Critically I ask is this (the pocket money or freedoms) the greatest risk - not proclaim it is evidence
3) I see American Governments think of themselves as being Christian
4) I see American Government have these concerns today
5) I wonder if anything would piss God off more than wrong doing committed by his faithful in his name.
1. Some or all, it matters not, you've not demonstrated that anyone is trying to pick my, or anyone else's pocket.
2. Please note that you've changed the definition of what the reprehensible desire to deprive on the part of christians may be. You equate pocket money with freedom. Given that you solicit debate, you need to be more clear, or more forthright, about your definitions in advance. Were we (those who read and respond to this thread) to have assumed your meaning absent a clear statement thereof? I rather suspected this is what you meant, but it is not what you posited at the outset.
3. Pardon me for what i'm about to say, as i have no desire to offer you personal offense--that has got to be just about the most naive thing i've ever heard anyone say about politicians, whether those who operate in the United States, or elsewhere.
4. Once again, you lack clarity. What are the "concerns" to which you refer?
5. Having no notion that any deity exists, this is to me a complete non sequitur.
Lets see
1. Gay marriages seems likely to argue to change your constutition to lead to a situation were fewer rights will be awarded to gays versus equality for all. If this happens won't you and America have lost something of value?
2. By that simple example I positioned pocket money as a variable to mean - "anything that is - or should be of worth to you". Not literally just cash. Hopefully this definition is clearer.
3. Don't Bush and Senior American officials when talking about the war say God is on our side? Isn't America mostly a Western society that believes in a Christian God when they say God?
4. Points one and two in that preceding message were the stated concerns - the war and the gay marriage vs constutition
5. But the whole thread topic is relative to Chirstians beliefs - not those of others. Your comment seems to miss that strong prerequisite. I have yet to hear of a Christian who doesn't believe in a God! So the logic (hopefully) remains intact if (apologies) unclear. To a non believer I would simply say the argument is:
Several peoples who profess to believe in a Christian God construct appear to be poised to do alot of broad harm in the name of that construct by following through with worldly actions that seem to go against the key teachings of that God construct as taught by his so called proclaimed son.
Whether you or anyone else believes in God or not - the danger for Christians is mistakenly not following God's will becuase they aren't thinking clearly enough how to follow his proclaimed desires for them.
Here, i'll be more forthright, it is not my goal to simply play games with you.
Politicians (those who profess it, as opposed to those who enter the political arena to foster an agenda) have a single goal, to preserve their employment. In a system such as monarchy, that means sucking up to powerful individuals as though there were no tomorrow. In an ostensible democracy, that means sucking up to the electorate, or a section thereof considered numerically sufficient to assure electoral success. To the extent that any particular politician views devout christians as a sufficiently populous segment of the electorate to assure electoral success, that politician is likely to say what it takes to convince that electorate of his/her equivalent devotion. In the matter of religion in the United States, one can safely do so even when the devout do not constitute an assured majority, so long as the effort does not offend those others whose vote will be required for electoral success. So, for example, the current administration can portray the Shrub as a devout christian, and gamble on electoral success, so long as the effort does not alienate a portion of the population sufficiently large to lead to electoral failure. Certain advantages accrue to this strategy, the most notable being that the devout can be relied upon to troop to the polls in a proportion far higher than the general population of elligible voters, thereby raising the degree of acceptable risk of offense to that portion of the electorate which do not fall into the category of devout christians. Of course, in the example of the United States and the current administration, the gamble is predicated upon an appeal not simply to devout christians, but to a segment of the devoutly christian population who can be identified as charismatics, fundatmentalist, the "born again."
However, in such an analysis, one ought never to forget that it is the appearance of sincerity, as opposed to genuine sincerity, which is the operative technique. When you refer to the American government, you have been so vague as to make a sensible analysis impossible. There are fifty-one relatively independent governments operating withing the United States, above the level of country and municipal administration. They account for millions and millions of people. Therefore, one would be advised to restrict one's inquiry to a segment of government. The obvious case here is the Shrub's administration. The Shrub may well be sincere, although i do have my doubts. He is sufficiently convincing to the fervent christians as being sincere to pretty well lock up their vote. However, it is noticable that for however much he professes a sincere christianity, that he has not been as activist as the fervent might hope. There really has been no significant invovation in terms of policy, the disbursement of funds, the fostering of legislation to an end desired by the fervent . . . and in fact, one might consider the example of the gay marriage brouhaha. The Shrub proposes a constitutional amendment. The fervent christians are delighted, and he has reaffirmed his "solidarity" with their system of values. Consider what amending the constitution entails--Article V of the constitution reads, in its entirety:
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.
There never has been an amending convention. There has never been a application by two thirds of the state legislatures for such a convention, or any specific amendment. Basically, the practice always has been that two thirds of each house of the Congress have proposed amendments, which have taken effect at such time as three fourths of the legislatures of the several states have ratified said proposed amendment. The Shrub gets to look good to the christian right, and nothing is accomplished toward the consumation so devoutly to be desired. It's a media shell game, and the christians are the suckers.
Personally, i think they are to be pitied, rather than vilified.
1. See my remarks above about what it means to amend the constitution.
2. It wasn't necessarily unclear to me at the outset. However, that entailed an assumption on my part, so i considered it necessary to get clarification.
3a. See my remarks above on the subject of sincerity.
3b. Are not the terrorists upon whom the Shrub claims to make war Muslim? It does not follow from that that all Muslims are terrorists. That the majority of Americans profess christianity is not evidence christian doctrine can be considered the crucial factor in policy and decision making.
4. So?
5. I will first note that my remark was made from my personal point of view, and if it will be necessary to state as much in such case, i will happily do so.
In the first place, many, if not most, institutional religions are historically pretty well blood-soaked. The most of them have professed ideals which are starkly at odds with murderous evangelizing. This is neither anything new, nor anything remarkable among the religiously devout, whether christians or not. Note my response in "3b" above. It does not follow at all that because a handful of powerful men and women of the current administration do things you and i find reprehensible, even criminal, and said individuals sometimes claim to be doing god's will, that Americans as a whole, or even in the majority, are christians prepared to do evil in the name of their doctrinal beliefs.
You are tarring with a remarkably broad brush here, Boss.
Setanta - very well argued
Your thoughts coincide with mine very highly on these matters - say better than a 97% fit.
My key concern for Christians is - be wary acting in an poorly though out manner that really represent an inversion of your faith - ones that led you to do exactly the wrong things. That is how broad my brush is meant to be.
My thoughts on the war against terror apply most strongly to the Bush Administration as you say.
It the same for any group with strong beliefs - Christians aren't the only ones at risk of course!
I don't want to black ball Christians - I want to say be very careful when acting in God's name.
I consider that the "hijacking" of the institutions of government in the United States by the Religious Right, Inc. is a prospect fraught with danger, and until recently, considered it a dangerous possibility. I no longer consider it a matter to worry about. The gay marriage brouhaha has revealed that even among charismatic christians there is not a monolithic support for such nonsense, and that the rest of the country will not sit idly by while the crackpots take over. When the Shrub tossed out the offer to amend the constitution, i literally laughed aloud. That is a totally meaningless gesture on his part, and will only work with the extremely credulous, who don't represent even a significant number among the fervent. Without going into the detail, two hundred years demonstrate that the constitution is not lightly amended, and that even such amendment is subject to revision by later amendment. Even were the Shrub reelected, it is unlikely that this will occur.
Thank you for the PM you sent me Paula.
We are all sinful creatures by nature. Combined with that sinful nature is the fact that God has given us free choice. We are not slaves to His word.
I believe in Jesus Christ. Therefore, I am a Christian. Even when I sin....break a commandment, I am nonetheless still a Christian...a good Christian too. Because, you see Paula, we all fall short. Because I believe that Jesus died for my sins and took my place in hell 2,000 years ago, I have nothing to fear!
You implied in your response to my question, that you somehow weren't a 'good' Christian because you failed to obey Gods word and your life took wrong turns because of it.
What bothers me about some Christians, is they want to tell other people who have problems in life that it's because they are not turning their life over to God. What business is it of theirs to say that to people!!! I know several people who are agnostic and they lead wonderful, happy lives. They aren't in trouble with the law, they have good families and they are kind and moral people. There are many reasons people screw up their lives and all too often, they use religion as a crutch instead of looking deeper at what cause them to make the bad choices in the first place. In my life I have made mistakes, but I take full responsibility for them. I chose the path I chose because I wanted to. And, as I look back on my life, those 'wrong' choices have turned out to be blessings in my life and made me the person I am today.
Religion for me is more about worshipping God and accepting His love and forgiveness. Not about controlling my life.
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace